March 19, 1999

By Sheila Judge, M.D.
President
Pennsylvania Psychiatric Society

When I think of what I have seen and learned about APA over the past two years, I believe that I am witnessing a most interesting evolutionary process. I'd like to share some reflections about these times, particularly as they impact upon district branches.

We are in the midst of changing our interactional model - the ways in which we, as members of an organization with vast resources and ambitious goals, relate to each other and access those resources to achieve some measure of professional satisfaction.

This process of change began when Dr. Herbert Sacks, as APA president, and others began to invite district branch presidents-elect to orientations and focus groups. These were the real eye-openers: District branch officers were astounded by how little they knew about both APA and other district branches, and the Board of Trustees heard and acted on a consistent message for a shift in focus away from organizational levels of isolation and toward grass-roots issues and increased information flow.

Dr. Rodrigo Muņoz, our current APA president, has articulated the next step: Members want and need to interact directly with APA. With individual members tapping in from their neighborhoods, APA programs and services can be more accurately shaped to local needs. This would be in addition to the working relationship already in place between a district branch and its chapters.

I think it would be a mistake, however, to shift the work of the national organization onto district branches. There are certain jobs-for example, interacting with federal legislators and agencies and other national groups based in Washington-that require the experience and presence of APA staff. Rather, this new model allows for invigoration in a more useful way by creating a constant flow of information-strategic, clinical, legislative-between APA and its district branches, and coordination by APA between district branches.

I can speak best about Pennsylvania, but it used to be that district branches were expected to function as the main conduit of information between APA and individual members. Yet district branches are more than the middle between national and local interests. They have one function that no other area of our organization can perform: involvement in the legislative and regulatory activity at the state level.

In the ideal new model, the district branches are increasingly freed up to take an accurate pulse of its members' clinical and economic needs, and respond quickly and efficiently in the arena of the politics and policies particular to each region. I'd like to see APA at the national level become the clearinghouse for our district branch committees, with daily electronic updates on the issues we are tackling in common.

The other day I ran into a colleague with whom I did my residency. Asking me whether I was enjoying my presidency year, he thanked me for my efforts and said, "Somebody has to do it-I won't!" There are (at least) two truths in his remarks. There is usually only a small percentage of psychiatrists willing and suited to do the special work of the district branch level, and you better believe that everyone else counts on it.